Issue #2132: Unresponsive maintainer of python-reportlab (wish to take over the package) - fesco

fesco

#2132 Unresponsive maintainer of python-reportlab (wish to take over the package)

Closed: Accepted 4 years ago by psabata. Opened 4 years ago by sagitter.

Hello!

The maintainer of the package 'python-reportlab' is not responding since many weeks to any participation request; please, let me take the control of that package.

Bug ticket: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1600316
Mail to devel ML: link

churchyard commented 4 years ago

Please, try to follow the policy:

https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Policy_for_nonresponsive_package_maintainers/

After every 7 days, the reporter adds a comment to the bug report asking again for a response.

Either way, consider me +1, @williamjmorenor is clearly nonresponsive.

sagitter commented 4 years ago

That bug report already contains a notable number of comments in my opinion. :)

churchyard commented 4 years ago

Some other packages that I care about:

dreampie - comaintained by @cicku
exaile - comaintained by @cicku and @deji
python-coveralls (no co-maintainers)
python-certifi (no co-maintainers, I can take it)
python-send2trash (no co-maintainers, I can take it)

Metadata Update from @churchyard:
- Issue tagged with: nonresponsive maintainer

4 years ago

bowlofeggs commented 4 years ago

I think we should follow the policy and open up a non-responsive maintainer BZ first.

sagitter commented 4 years ago

rhbz #1713011

Edited 4 years ago by sagitter

sagitter commented 4 years ago

Attempt #2.
(Another week wasted)

churchyard commented 4 years ago

consider me +1 still

sgallagh commented 4 years ago

bowlofeggs commented 4 years ago

By my reading of the policy, we need to wait another week on that BZ before voting.

churchyard commented 4 years ago

Another week has passed, I'm still +1.

zbyszek commented 4 years ago

Looking at bugzilla, William seems to go missing very suddenly. I hope it's just a temporary thing and he'll come back at some point (e.g. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1549011#c3). But I agree that orphaning packages is the right thing for now.

We now have satisfied all the formal requirements. Orphaning is approved (+3, 0, 0).

Metadata Update from @zbyszek:
- Issue tagged with: pending announcement

4 years ago

churchyard commented 4 years ago

Are we orphaning all of his packages? I don't clearly understand this part of the policy.

zbyszek commented 4 years ago

We determined that the maintainer is non-responsive. I don't think it makes much sense to orphan some packages: we must assume that all are unmaintained in the same way. So I think they all need reassigning.

churchyard commented 4 years ago

https://pagure.io/releng/issue/8423